About the NPP2020: "I probably will support the plan, however I don’t know enough about it to make an absolute commitment without more details."

Equity: "I don’t know of any inequities and therefore have no idea what actions I would take to improve equity."

Riverfirst: "I’m not sure that I support making parks [...] that abut the river."

Public/Private partnerships: "I don’t know enough about them"

Climate change and ecosystem: "I don’t know anything about the Ecological System Plan"

RecQuest: "I don’t know if the sports and youth programming is or isn’t out of balance and if it is I have no plans on how to fix it"

Top 3 priorities: "It certainly wouldn’t surprise me that we have the best park system in the nation. If that is the case then my priorities would be to continue to do the things that got us this ranking."

Also Jonathan Mark Honerbrink says of the park system, "This is a natural structure that has been laid out by God." and says we need to build more apps. His closing pitch, "I will create over 5000 jobs with in 7 years through the park board. I am willing to sit down with the league of women voters to discuss how this is possible with no increased taxes at their request."

I really don't understand why people like that run for office in the first place. First, how do you decide to run for an office where you have no idea what the common issues are for that position. And then go to a forum or answer questionnaire where you flat out say "I don't know anything about that" to a large number of questions, why do you think anybody would want to vote for you, or that you'd even be prepared to deal with the issues if you did somehow win.

FISHMANPET wrote:I really don't understand why people like that run for office in the first place. First, how do you decide to run for an office where you have no idea what the common issues are for that position. And then go to a forum or answer questionnaire where you flat out say "I don't know anything about that" to a large number of questions, why do you think anybody would want to vote for you, or that you'd even be prepared to deal with the issues if you did somehow win.

Yeah it's one thing to be honest and admit where your knowledge is lacking, and demonstrate a desire to learn more, but a literal "I don't know anything about that" or like Ron Peterson did at a Ward 9 forum, he passed on about a third of the question.

Is everyone prepared for Ginger Jentzen to win? I see her people campaigning at the U every single day.

Prepared and excited. I hosted a fundraiser for her last night. Over half the people in my apartment building are voting for her. I'm firmly convinced she's the best choice in this race. She's genuine, experienced, and much more knowledgeable than some people have been giving her credit for.

For me, park board at large is unique in that there are really 4 candidates I'd be happy with, so instead of of picking the least bad people to rank, I'm trying to figure out who is the least good for Park Board.

I'm leaning towards the same ranking as PhilmerPhil said above. Though I'd be perfectly fine if Londel French made it instead of one of them. As with the mayor's race, it sure would be nice if we could rank out to four or five instead of three.

I'm definitely biased here, but I didn't include French because he does not seem to support skateparks at all. I chatted with him at the convention about it, and he seemed somewhat dismissive of skateboarding in general. He was also one of the only At Large candidates to not fill out the City of Skate questionnaire: http://www.cityofskate.org/mprb-candidates/

French was also the only at-large candidate who did not respond to the Our Streets Mpls candidate survey and the only at-large candidate who did not respond to the League of Women Voters survey. I'll be ranking some combination of Vetaw, Henry and Hogan.

That is disappointing to hear about Londell French. While I'm sure these surveys get annoying, not responding to Our Streets, as a Park Board candidate, is troubling. And blowing off the LWV is pretty rude as well.

I am increasingly impressed by Vetaw and definitely swayed by some of the endorsements. Had she been in the race earlier and ran for the DFL endorsement, I think she could've gotten it over one of the 3 "Our Revolution" boys.

On the subject of at-large Park Board rankings, could someone help me out with how those votes get counted, given that there are 3 seats to be filled. I have a theory, and I think I am correct, but I want some validation here. Let's say that you REALLY, REALLY want a particular candidate to win, and you are concerned that they might come in 4th place, I would suggest a strategy of voting ONLY for that one candidate and do not rank a 2nd or 3rd choice (ignoring for a moment any "strategic" ranking to keep the worst candidates out). Is that correct?

I am increasingly impressed by Vetaw and definitely swayed by some of the endorsements. Had she been in the race earlier and ran for the DFL endorsement, I think she could've gotten it over one of the 3 "Our Revolution" boys.

Thought she was a Green? Or she would have sought both parties' nomination?

On the subject of at-large Park Board rankings, could someone help me out with how those votes get counted, given that there are 3 seats to be filled.

Don't understand it at all, nor have any attempts I've seen to explain it made any sense. Asked Brauer (is usually an election judge, follows this stuff) on twitter. Thought there were more responsive tweets than this though: https://twitter.com/ajm6792/status/918832409747099649

On the subject of at-large Park Board rankings, could someone help me out with how those votes get counted, given that there are 3 seats to be filled. I have a theory, and I think I am correct, but I want some validation here. Let's say that you REALLY, REALLY want a particular candidate to win, and you are concerned that they might come in 4th place, I would suggest a strategy of voting ONLY for that one candidate and do not rank a 2nd or 3rd choice (ignoring for a moment any "strategic" ranking to keep the worst candidates out). Is that correct?

It is terribly confusing how the votes get tallied for these 3 seats.

Based on the link shared by amiller92, not placing anyone in spots 2 and 3 provides no strategic value. If they get elected in the first or second round in that example, you are just throwing away the extra 40 cents, in that example. If they don't get elected in the first and second rounds, and get eliminated, you are then forfeiting the right to choose between the remaining candidates.

For those 5 candidates, if your first choice was David, Sanja or Ayan, it doesn't matter who your 2nd and 3rd are, because 100% of your vote sticks with your candidate the whole time. So it's true that you wouldn't have gained by putting anyone down, but it wasn't "strategic." If your first choice was Carlos or Lee, your 2nd choice would be counted (and your 3rd counted too if you put them both down as #1 and #2), and it'd be useless to not have someone there.